Bush v. Roberts

Citation111 N.Y. 278,18 N.E. 732
PartiesBUSH et al. v. ROBERTS et al.
Decision Date27 November 1888
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Fourth department.

The plaintiffs, as administrators of one Henry T. Wakefield, deceased, brought the present action to have set aside and declared fraudulent and void, as against a judgment recovered by them, a certain conveyance of real and personal property, made by defendant Orrin G. Robbins to defendant Henry L. Roberts. The defendant Robbins did not appear or defend in the action, and the trial was had upon the issues raised by the answer of the defendant Roberts to the complaint. At the time of the death of the intestate, Wakefield, on November 29, 1883, the defendant Robbins, in whose employ the intestate had been for many years, was largely indebted to him. That indebtedness was to some extent secured by mortgages on a portion of Robbins' farm, and to some extent was unsecured. The judgment which is the basis of the plaintiff's complaint was obtained against Robbins on January 10, 1884. The conveyance which is attacked was made on December 7, 1883, and affected a portion of Robbins' farm, which was not covered by the mortgages, and a large amount of personal property located upon it. The consideration for the conveyance was $7,500, which the trial judge found on the evidence to be $1,600 less than the value of the property transferred. At the time of the execution of the conveyance, Roberts gave his due-bill for the purchase price; and the deed and due-bill were deposited with a third party for three days, when the parties met, and the deed and bill were delivered to them as they were respectively entitled thereto under the transaction of sale. Within a few days afterwards the deed was recorded, and the due-bill paid, less the amounts of a judgment for $500 recorded against Robbins, and of some unpaid taxes. Soon thereafter Robbins disappeared, and was not seen again in that locality. The trial resulted in a judgment against the defendants. Defendant Roberts appealed therefrom to the general term, which affirmed the judgment below, and from that judgment of affirmance he appeals to this court.

Watson M. Rogers, for appellant.

C. S. Mereness, (Thomas E. Jones, of counsel,) for respondents.

GRAY, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

Various facts which he decided to be proved by the evidence led the learned trial judge to conclude that the transfer of property by the defendant Robbins to the defendant Roberts was made with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors, and there fore to be void; but in the chain of evidence leading to his conclusion, which seems, to far as it establishes knowledge in the vendee, not very weighty, was a conversation had between one of the plaintiffs and Robbins, shortly after the death of the intestate, and prior to the transfer of the property. The evidence of this conversation was elicited on the opening of the plaintiffs' case. Bush, one of the plaintiffs, had testified to a visit which he and his co-administrator had made to Robbins' house for the purpose of taking possession of the effects of their intestate, and that on that occasion he had a conversation with Robbins ‘upon the subject of the claims of this estate held against him and this property.’ He was asked by plaintiffs' counsel to state that conversation. This was objected to by counsel for defendant Roberts, (who alone had appeared and was defending the action,) on the ground that it was incompetent and immaterial as against that defendant; but the objection was overruled, and the evidence was received. The witness thereupon testified to the statements made by Robbins in the course of the conversation. It seems to us evident that these statements were deemed of importance and material by the trial judge; because in his ninth finding of fact, after stating the circumstances of the plaintiff's visit to Robbins' house, he incorporates them. He finds that plaintiffs ‘had conversation with defendant Robbins, who in reply to questions put to him by Bush, one of the plaintiffs, informed them that he was a large debtor to said estate; that it had been allowed to run for years withoutinterest being paid, and he didn't know just how much it was;’ and other facts which Robbins stated then about the quantity and value of his property. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Durlacher v. Frazer
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • December 17, 1898
    ...possession can not be given in evidence against the vendee. (Wait on Fraudulent Conv., Sec. 278, 85 Mich. 380; 116 U.S. 161; 86 Cal. 241; 111 N.Y. 278; 32 S. C., 582; 113 Mass. 76; 30 Kan. 353; 37 id., 457.) As against a mortgagee, evidence of declarations of the mortgagor long before the e......
  • Chantry v. Pettit Motor Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 21, 1930
    ...... the main fact, are contemporaneous with it, and serve to. illustrate its character.". . .          In. Bush v. Roberts, 111 N.Y. 278, 18 N.E. 732, 7 Am. St. Rep. 741 it was held, quoting syllabus: "In order. that the declarations of a party may be ......
  • Chantry v. Pettit Motor Co, 12862.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 21, 1930
    ...which grow out of the main fact, are contemporaneous with it, and serve to illustrate its character." In Bush v. Roberts, 111 N. X. 278, 18 N. E. 732, 7 Am. St. Rep. 741 it was held, quoting syllabus: "In order that the declarations of a party may be admissible in evidence as part of a tran......
  • Lent v. Shear
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 1899
    ......Kain v. Larkin, 131 N. Y. 300, 309,30 N. E. 105;[160 N.Y. 470]Bush v. Roberts, 111 N. Y. 278, 18 N. E. 732;Truax v. Slater, 86 N. Y. 630;Tabor v. Van Tassell, 86 N. Y. 642;Coyne v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 386;Burnham v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT